Numbered Step Arguments

If you believe something—socialism, capitalism, the right to choose, that Trump is an idiot, whatever—then you presumably have reasons for that belief. You don’t just wake up one morning and say, “Ah, I see that socialism is true!”  Even if changes in belief can sometimes strike us as a revelation of that sort, presumably there were reasons behind that recognition.

And if you want to convince someone else of your  view, it is good to have reasons. Why should they believe you if you haven’t given them any reason to support your claim? You want to have an argument. So, what is it to have reasons? What is it to have an argument? An argument starts with premises from which a conclusion is claimed to logically follow.

One thing we do in philosophy is to be extremely explicit about our arguments, and one technique that we use is to break down arguments into a series of numbered steps, where each step is clearly identified either as a premise (something assumed to be true for the sake of this argument) or an inference  from previous steps in the argument.  Here is a basic example from Socialism: A Logical Introduction:

Master Argument for Socialism

(1)          Socialism better promotes human well-being than extant alternative styles of governance. [P]

(2)          Socialism does not violate moral rights of individuals.  [P]

(3)          Given two styles of governance, if the first better promotes human well-being than the second and does not violate moral rights of individuals, then it should be chosen over the second.  [P]

(4)          Socialism should be chosen over extant alternative styles of governance.  [1,2,3]

Laying out arguments in this way is extremely helpful: it can help us understand and clarify good arguments, and it can cut mercilessly through the pretensions of bad ones. The numbered step version of an argument lays bare the framework or skeleton of the reasoning. And just as you would have a very difficult time standing if your femurs were broken, your reasoning will have little chance of reaching the truth if you don’t have true premises that logically imply your conclusion.